Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Darksbane

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:09 AM

alpha5099

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:30 AM

alpha5099

Advanced Member

Members

275 posts

There's an Ewok pod?! -happy dance-

I was sure we'd have to wait till they got to an Endor cycle before we'd get Ewoks.

Now we just need Jawas and Tusken Raiders (points to his avatar, Señor Tusken Raider), and I'll be the happiest. I could see Tusken Raiders fitting into Scum and Villainy, though I'm not sure about Jawas; Smugglers and Spies doesn't quite feel right, maybe Neutral Light Side?

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:53 AM

Darksbane

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:07 AM

Darksbane

Administrator

Administrators

3,552 posts

Depends, if I get confirmation that someone is going to scan for me tomorrow I'll likely wait. If it seems like it will take longer I'll go ahead and enter them in. At the latest I should have everything entered in with or without images on Wednesday.

Darksbane

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:53 PM

Darksbane

Administrator

Administrators

3,552 posts

I think it being a neutral is a mistake (unless it has changed since Gencon) but the numbering problem is a mistake on the card. It is the only card which appears multiple times but has a different number according to Andy.

karrde

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

karrde

Advanced Member

Members

124 posts

I think it being a neutral is a mistake (unless it has changed since Gencon) but the numbering problem is a mistake on the card. It is the only card which appears multiple times but has a different number according to Andy.

Along the topic of the duplicate numbers. How do you expect to represent this fact in the database? Is the card entry for say "Tallon Roll" going to show both 27-5 and 30-4, or will they be two separate entries? I think I'd lean towards the former.

At first when I was looking at a block and you were only showing the Objective card for the rest and then showing all the cards when looking at the objective card I though it was a mistake. But when you get to the point of having a card that's in multiple Objective Sets it makes a lot more sense.

I guess this also extends slightly to cards that are duplicated w/i an OSet, like Ewok Scouts or Espo Troopers.

Darksbane

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:20 PM

Darksbane

Administrator

Administrators

3,552 posts

Honestly I'm still trying to figure out which is best. I was intending to go with 1 record for the card, and that card show all the objectives it is linked back to. However there are more technical difficulties with this approach now that I see the full card list.

At the moment I'm leaning back toward giving each instance of a card its own entry. I don't like having duplicate data like that usually but it would likely only be an issue on the core sets (or perhaps the larger expansions) and it will greatly simplify my coding and querying when working with the deckbuilder. Additionally if I went with this approach it would allow me to show all the cards in an objective set on every card in the list, reducing the need to click back and forth.

There are some problems to this approach though, not the least of which is that as a database designer it is not good to denormalize data like that. Additionally the auto card links will be more of a pain, but when it comes down to it I basically have to choose if I want to spend a bunch of time re-coding the spoiler list or would that time be better spent working on the deckbuilder and getting it ready sooner rather than later. At the moment I think the deckbuilder should be more of a priority.

Toqtamish

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:16 PM

karrde

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:58 PM

karrde

Advanced Member

Members

124 posts

Would it perhaps be useful to separate card info into two tables. One table is what is the core mechanics of the card, the other table is the set information.

I think it's actually only going to be worse when you start hitting the expansions, because we'll see generic stuff start popping up in other sets outside of the core. Take "Blaster Pistol" for instance. There's only one in the entire Core Set and I'm sure there will be more coming later. I also don't imagine that the mechanics of the card will change between sets, so the separation would make sense to me.

karrde

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:05 PM

karrde

Advanced Member

Members

124 posts

Expounding on this a bit more. The way I would see it is that everything from Column D "Name" and to the right would be the card information in one table. Then the second table would be columns A-C. You would also tie the card graphic to this table so that you could have a unique graphic for each individual card.

As far as visible relations on the page you could do a "select * on SetInfo where Setinfo.card_id=current.id" to reveal all other objective sets that the current card is in

Darksbane

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:31 PM

Darksbane

Administrator

Administrators

3,552 posts

That would be how I would normally do it, but like I said it would require alot of coding changes to the spoiler lists as they just aren't designed to display data that way, especially across sets. So I'd end up having to recode the front end, back end and all the data entry screens to accomidate it at a reasonable level. Eventually I'll likely end up doing this but if I did it right now it would mean at least a couple of weeks before I could get it done due to the holidays and my work schedule. Better I think to go ahead and work with the existing system and have a few duplicates in the database and then do a redesign when time permits.

alpha5099

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:04 PM

alpha5099

Advanced Member

Members

275 posts

Would it perhaps be useful to separate card info into two tables. One table is what is the core mechanics of the card, the other table is the set information.

I think it's actually only going to be worse when you start hitting the expansions, because we'll see generic stuff start popping up in other sets outside of the core. Take "Blaster Pistol" for instance. There's only one in the entire Core Set and I'm sure there will be more coming later. I also don't imagine that the mechanics of the card will change between sets, so the separation would make sense to me.

Obviously FFG is modifying a lot of the established distribution patterns for LCGs with this game, but based on past games, I would not expect to see the cards from the Core Set appear in pods in Force Packs. Take AGOT, which existed for many years as a CCG before the transition: every card in a Chapter Pack is a brand new card, not appearing in previous releases (with a handful of exceptions). There have been, however, many reprints from the CCG days, but all of those have appeared in the Core Set or in the later Deluxe Expansions; the Deluxe Expansions also frequently include some cards from the Core Set, but only resource locations. I'm assuming that Force Pack's will maintain the "every card is a new card" approach, so if we see repeats of cards, it would be in the Smugglers/Scum expansion.